Cargando…

Protocol for a systematic review of the use of qualitative comparative analysis for evaluative questions in public health research

BACKGROUND: There is an increasing recognition that health intervention research requires methods and approaches that can engage with the complexity of systems, interventions, and the relations between systems and interventions. One approach which shows promise to this end is qualitative comparative...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hanckel, Benjamin, Petticrew, Mark, Thomas, James, Green, Judith
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6824055/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31675984
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-1159-5
_version_ 1783464662419898368
author Hanckel, Benjamin
Petticrew, Mark
Thomas, James
Green, Judith
author_facet Hanckel, Benjamin
Petticrew, Mark
Thomas, James
Green, Judith
author_sort Hanckel, Benjamin
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: There is an increasing recognition that health intervention research requires methods and approaches that can engage with the complexity of systems, interventions, and the relations between systems and interventions. One approach which shows promise to this end is qualitative comparative analysis (QCA), which examines casual complexity across a medium to large number of cases (between 10 and 60+), whilst also being able to generalise across those cases. Increasingly, QCA is being adopted in public health intervention research. However, there is a limited understanding of how it is being adopted. This systematic review will address this gap, examining how it is being used to understand complex causation; for what settings, populations and interventions; and with which datasets to describe cases. METHODS: We will include published and peer-reviewed studies of any public health intervention where the effects on population health, health equity, or intervention uptake are being evaluated. Electronic searches of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science (incorporating Social Sciences Citation Index and Arts & Humanities Citation Index), Microsoft Academic, and Google Scholar will be performed. This will be supplemented with reference citation tracking and personal contact with experts to identify any additional published studies. Search results will be single screened, with machine learning used to check these results, acting as a ‘second screener’. Any disagreement will be resolved through discussion. Data will be extracted from full texts of eligible studies, which will be assessed against inclusion criteria, and synthesised narratively, using thematic synthesis methods. DISCUSSION: This systematic review will provide an important map of the increasing use of QCA in public health intervention literature. This review will identify the current scope of research in this area, as well as assessing claims about the utility of the method for addressing complex causation in public health research. We will identify implications for better reporting of QCA methods in public health research and for reporting of case studies such that they can be used in future QCA studies. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42019131910
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6824055
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68240552019-11-06 Protocol for a systematic review of the use of qualitative comparative analysis for evaluative questions in public health research Hanckel, Benjamin Petticrew, Mark Thomas, James Green, Judith Syst Rev Protocol BACKGROUND: There is an increasing recognition that health intervention research requires methods and approaches that can engage with the complexity of systems, interventions, and the relations between systems and interventions. One approach which shows promise to this end is qualitative comparative analysis (QCA), which examines casual complexity across a medium to large number of cases (between 10 and 60+), whilst also being able to generalise across those cases. Increasingly, QCA is being adopted in public health intervention research. However, there is a limited understanding of how it is being adopted. This systematic review will address this gap, examining how it is being used to understand complex causation; for what settings, populations and interventions; and with which datasets to describe cases. METHODS: We will include published and peer-reviewed studies of any public health intervention where the effects on population health, health equity, or intervention uptake are being evaluated. Electronic searches of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science (incorporating Social Sciences Citation Index and Arts & Humanities Citation Index), Microsoft Academic, and Google Scholar will be performed. This will be supplemented with reference citation tracking and personal contact with experts to identify any additional published studies. Search results will be single screened, with machine learning used to check these results, acting as a ‘second screener’. Any disagreement will be resolved through discussion. Data will be extracted from full texts of eligible studies, which will be assessed against inclusion criteria, and synthesised narratively, using thematic synthesis methods. DISCUSSION: This systematic review will provide an important map of the increasing use of QCA in public health intervention literature. This review will identify the current scope of research in this area, as well as assessing claims about the utility of the method for addressing complex causation in public health research. We will identify implications for better reporting of QCA methods in public health research and for reporting of case studies such that they can be used in future QCA studies. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42019131910 BioMed Central 2019-11-01 /pmc/articles/PMC6824055/ /pubmed/31675984 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-1159-5 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Protocol
Hanckel, Benjamin
Petticrew, Mark
Thomas, James
Green, Judith
Protocol for a systematic review of the use of qualitative comparative analysis for evaluative questions in public health research
title Protocol for a systematic review of the use of qualitative comparative analysis for evaluative questions in public health research
title_full Protocol for a systematic review of the use of qualitative comparative analysis for evaluative questions in public health research
title_fullStr Protocol for a systematic review of the use of qualitative comparative analysis for evaluative questions in public health research
title_full_unstemmed Protocol for a systematic review of the use of qualitative comparative analysis for evaluative questions in public health research
title_short Protocol for a systematic review of the use of qualitative comparative analysis for evaluative questions in public health research
title_sort protocol for a systematic review of the use of qualitative comparative analysis for evaluative questions in public health research
topic Protocol
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6824055/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31675984
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-1159-5
work_keys_str_mv AT hanckelbenjamin protocolforasystematicreviewoftheuseofqualitativecomparativeanalysisforevaluativequestionsinpublichealthresearch
AT petticrewmark protocolforasystematicreviewoftheuseofqualitativecomparativeanalysisforevaluativequestionsinpublichealthresearch
AT thomasjames protocolforasystematicreviewoftheuseofqualitativecomparativeanalysisforevaluativequestionsinpublichealthresearch
AT greenjudith protocolforasystematicreviewoftheuseofqualitativecomparativeanalysisforevaluativequestionsinpublichealthresearch